The equivalence of multi-axis spine systems: Recommended stiffness limits using a standardized testing protocol.

The complexity of multi-axis spine testing often makes it challenging to compare results from different studies. The aim of this work was to develop and implement a standardized testing protocol across three six-axis spine systems, compare them, and provide stiffness and phase angle limits against which other test systems can be compared. Standardized synthetic lumbar specimens (n=5), comprising three springs embedded in polymer at each end, were tested on each system using pure moments in flexion-extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation. Tests were performed using sine and triangle waves with an amplitude of 8Nm, a frequency of 0.1Hz, and with axial preloads of 0 and 500N. The stiffness, phase angle, and R2 value of the moment against rotation in the principal axis were calculated at the center of each specimen. The tracking error was adopted asa measure of each test system to minimize non-principal loads, defined as the root mean squared difference between actual and target loads. All three test systems demonstrated similar stiffnesses, with small (<14%) but significant differences in 4 of 12 tests. More variability was observed in the phase angle between the principal axis moment and rotation, with significant differences in 10 of 12 tests. Stiffness and phase angle limits were calculated based on the 95% confidence intervals from all three systems. These recommendations can be used with the standard specimen and testing protocol by other research institutions to ensure equivalence of different spine systems, increasing the ability to compare in vitro spine studies.

[1]  L. Claes,et al.  A universal spine tester for in vitro experiments with muscle force simulation , 2005, European Spine Journal.

[2]  Brian P. Kelly,et al.  Design and validation of a novel Cartesian biomechanical testing system with coordinated 6DOF real-time load control: application to the lumbar spine (L1-S, L4-L5). , 2013, Journal of biomechanics.

[3]  Mack Gardner-Morse,et al.  Measurement of a spinal motion segment stiffness matrix. , 2002, Journal of biomechanics.

[4]  I. Stokes,et al.  Spinal stiffness increases with axial load: another stabilizing consequence of muscle action. , 2003, Journal of electromyography and kinesiology : official journal of the International Society of Electrophysiological Kinesiology.

[5]  John J Costi,et al.  Frequency-Dependent Behavior of the Intervertebral Disc in Response to Each of Six Degree of Freedom Dynamic Loading: Solid Phase and Fluid Phase Contributions , 2008, Spine.

[6]  K. An,et al.  The effect of loading rate and degeneration on neutral region motion in human cadaveric lumbar motion segments. , 2008, Clinical biomechanics.

[7]  I. Stokes,et al.  Physiological axial compressive preloads increase motion segment stiffness, linearity and hysteresis in all six degrees of freedom for small displacements about the neutral posture , 2003, Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society.

[8]  William C Welch,et al.  Spinal facet joint biomechanics and mechanotransduction in normal, injury and degenerative conditions. , 2011, Journal of biomechanical engineering.

[9]  V. Rasche,et al.  A new dynamic six degrees of freedom disc-loading simulator allows to provoke disc damage and herniation , 2016, European Spine Journal.

[10]  Heinz Ulbrich,et al.  A novel application of direct force control to perform in-vitro biomechanical tests using robotic technology. , 2013, Journal of biomechanics.

[11]  Manohar M. Panjabi,et al.  Development of a System for In Vitro Neck Muscle Force Replication in Whole Cervical Spine Experiments , 2001, Spine.

[12]  J. Costi,et al.  The effect of hydration on the stiffness of intervertebral discs in an ovine model. , 2002, Clinical biomechanics.

[13]  T R Oxland,et al.  In vitro axial preload application during spine flexibility testing: towards reduced apparatus-related artefacts. , 2000, Journal of biomechanics.

[14]  I. M. Lawless,et al.  Adaptive velocity-based six degree of freedom load control for real-time unconstrained biomechanical testing. , 2014, Journal of biomechanics.

[15]  A. Patwardhan,et al.  Test protocols for evaluation of spinal implants. , 2006, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[16]  L. Haugh,et al.  Effect of Test Environment on Intervertebral Disc Hydration , 1997, Spine.

[17]  Brian P Kelly,et al.  Robotic application of a dynamic resultant force vector using real-time load-control: simulation of an ideal follower load on Cadaveric L4-L5 segments. , 2013, Journal of biomechanics.

[18]  L. Claes,et al.  Testing criteria for spinal implants: recommendations for the standardization of in vitro stability testing of spinal implants , 1998, European Spine Journal.

[19]  I. M. Lawless,et al.  Effect of potting technique on the measurement of six degree-of-freedom viscoelastic properties of human lumbar spine segments. , 2015, Journal of biomechanical engineering.

[20]  Justin K Scheer,et al.  Inter-laboratory variability in in vitro spinal segment flexibility testing. , 2011, Journal of biomechanics.

[21]  W. Welch,et al.  Advanced Multi-Axis Spine Testing: Clinical Relevance and Research Recommendations , 2015, International Journal of Spine Surgery.

[22]  A. Minami,et al.  Multidirectional flexibility analysis of anterior and posterior lumbar artificial disc reconstruction: in vitro human cadaveric spine model , 2006, European Spine Journal.

[23]  H. Gill,et al.  The development of a dynamic, six-axis spine simulator. , 2014, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.

[24]  I. Stokes,et al.  Structural behavior of human lumbar spinal motion segments. , 2004, Journal of biomechanics.

[25]  Sabina Gheduzzi,et al.  The dynamic, six-axis stiffness matrix testing of porcine spinal specimens. , 2015, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.

[26]  S. Teoh,et al.  Multi-axial spine biomechanical testing system with speckle displacement instrumentation. , 2002, Journal of biomechanical engineering.

[27]  L. Claes,et al.  Spinal segment range of motion as a function of in vitro test conditions: Effects of exposure period, accumulated cycles, angular‐deformation rate, and moisture condition , 1998, The Anatomical record.

[28]  Sabina Gheduzzi,et al.  The application of physiological loading using a dynamic, multi-axis spine simulator. , 2017, Medical engineering & physics.

[29]  Steven Grainger,et al.  Stiffness Analysis and Control of a Stewart Platform-Based Manipulator With Decoupled Sensor–Actuator Locations for Ultrahigh Accuracy Positioning Under Large External Loads , 2014 .

[30]  W. Tawackoli,et al.  The Effect of Compressive Axial Preload on the Flexibility of the Thoracolumbar Spine , 2004, Spine.

[31]  K. An,et al.  A dynamic method for in vitro multisegment spine testing. , 2010, Orthopaedics & traumatology, surgery & research : OTSR.

[32]  A. Manolescu,et al.  Global and segmental kinematic changes following sequential resection of posterior osteoligamentous structures in the lumbar spine: An in vitro biomechanical investigation using pure moment testing protocols , 2015, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. Part H, Journal of engineering in medicine.

[33]  Steven Grainger,et al.  Active preload control of a redundantly actuated Stewart platform for backlash prevention , 2013, 2013 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation.

[34]  Characterization of the L4-L5-S1 motion segment using the stepwise reduction method. , 2016, Journal of biomechanics.